Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
What are the biggest RPG crimes?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7556541" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>I admit that at first glance, most people think I have a somewhat heterodox view of metagaming. I know it is popular to blame metagaming for everything, just as once upon a time it was popular to attribute to 'realism' the solution to everything. But I believe both are based on fundamental misunderstandings.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I didn't object originally because your first statement was not as absolute as your later statements. I don't object to the idea that metagaming can be a crime. I object to the idea that it is universally objectively bad and further any good role-player should hate metagaming.</p><p></p><p>Before we get into why, let me note our agreement:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Good. This definition accords well with the one I offered, so we are on the same page. Now, I'm going to hold you to that statement.</p><p></p><p>First proposition:</p><p></p><p>1) All players and all DMs always and with every action metagame all the time with every action that they take within an RPG. There is no action that you can take in an RPG that is not metagaming. </p><p></p><p>This follows directly from the definition that you just gave. Every player at all times knows things that his character does not know, including the fact that it is a game. It is impossible to act in a way that you disregard the information you as a player know that the character does not know. Even if you consciously note to yourself the things you know that you know that your character doesn't know, and try to disregard those things completely, you are still then acting on the knowledge of the things you know that your player doesn't know. Because you know these things, you can never unknow them. Your decision making process is forever tainted by this knowledge, and can never be pure and free from metagame knowledge. Although you can try very hard to be introspective and ask yourself, "What would my character do in this situation?", even then you are asking yourself that and engaging in introspection, and you are not yourself in the game world and cannot possibly answer the question except as influenced by all the other stuff that you know.</p><p></p><p>So when we talk about metagaming being a crime, we are perforce, speaking of a very narrow range of metagaming activity, since the whole of playing an RPG where you make choice for your character is metagaming activity. It can't possibly be the case that metagaming is bad, unless we also agree that playing an RPG is bad. </p><p></p><p>Which brings us to our second postulate:</p><p></p><p>2) Metagaming is actually good and necessary to playing an RPG. </p><p></p><p>Let's suppose that we were obsessed with the idea of playing a pure simulation of an imagined world, free from any metagaming. We could begin to create procedures of play that would ensure that we didn't act based on metagame knowledge. For example, faced with a situation where we know the character is facing a troll, but we also realize that deliberately not using fire in this situation is also metagaming, since absence our knowledge that this is a troll and is vulnerable to fire, either we might have stumbled on the idea of using fire anyway or the character might have heard in his long life within the setting stories of trolls and their vulnerability to fire (and many other traits). So we in this situation decide to flip a coin, in order that we can guarantee our decision is free from bias and we cannot be accused of the 'evils' of metagaming.</p><p></p><p>However, by the first proposition all decision points are identical to the decision point of whether to hit the troll with the torch. Everything is tainted by our out of character knowledge, and so every decision must be resolved by a coin flip of some sort. The result of our obsession is that the game will cease to be an RPG. Indeed, it will cease to be a game at all. What we will instead have created is a model. We can set it running, but once it is running, to maintain the purity of the simulation we - being outside the model and so influenced by our knowledge that the characters in the model couldn't have - can't in fact touch it. We won't make decisions at all.</p><p></p><p>3) When the DM creates a setting or scenario, he acts on knowledge no character within the scenario or setting could have - including the fact that it is a game. However, this is not (in and of itself) metagaming.</p><p></p><p>Why? Because you said yourself that metagaming involves acting on behalf of a character and a DM creating a castle or a city or a jungle isn't acting on behalf of a character. No NPCs wishes are consulted in that creative process. While he may at times after things have begun ask, "What might this NPC do in this situation based on what the NPC knows?", there is no way that he can ask questions like, "What might this setting be like based only on the information within the setting?" The setting can't be defined in terms of itself - it's always defined in external terms, by making reference to the one setting we have, reality. Even when it differs to reality, that's still referencing reality as a baseline. </p><p></p><p>Now, for the record, I consider your definition slightly too narrow. There are things you can do in a setting that are metagaming, and I mentioned a few (such as adjusting the nature of your setting to counter the abilities of the players) but merely establishing a setting is not metagaming. And, even if it was, it wouldn't necessarily be wrong.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So let's get to this now. I put it to you that you can't unknow that the character knows that trolls are weak to fire, and you can't but metagame about that. You can't unknow that and ever again actually simulate the not knowing that. At best you can do is try to pretend for a while you don't know that, and make some determination of how quickly your character might figure that out, but that entire decision making process will always be based on your out of game knowledge.</p><p></p><p>Secondly, the assumption that a puzzle is solvable based on the fact your DM presented it to you is metagaming, but it's a really lousy assumption. This is an example not only of metagaming, but metagaming based on knowledge that is likely wrong. The fact that a player is acting on out of game knowledge that is actually wrong is really the only reason I tell my players not to metagame. It's not that I think that there is any wrongness in a player metagaming, it's just that I think players are usually pretty terrible at doing it and further that if you get in the habit of relying on out of game knowledge, you'll tend to ignore end game clues. I don't tell my players not to metagame because I think it's a crime to do so - it's all metagaming. I tell them that because I think that players use it as a weak crutch.</p><p></p><p>In point of fact, I believe all metagaming is the DMs fault and reflects badly on the DM. A DM should never be upset with his players for metagaming, and never tell his players, "Don't do that. That's metagaming." It took me maybe 15 years to realize that, but telling your players not to metagame is proof of your own bad DMing and your own reliance on crutches. If the players are metagaming and you are upset about it, one or more of the following is true:</p><p></p><p>a) You became invested in some sort of 'gotcha' encounter, which is adversarial DMing.</p><p>b) You are trying to play the player's character, which is a violation of the baseline social contract of an RPG.</p><p>c) You did a bad job in your role of secret keeper, and let slip a secret at the wrong time, and you are doing an equally bad job of improvising. This suggests you need to work on your skills, you were bragging to the players, you were impatient, you didn't study enough before the session, or you just otherwise made a noob mistake. Now that the secret is out of the bag, it's ridiculous to act like the players can ignore the secret.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Why not?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, although as I noted above, not by your definition. But if that is metagaming, so is putting 5 Bugbears in the room instead of 50 or 500, or not chasing the players down with an ancient red dragon, or deciding that the country you will start on is loosely based on medieval Scotland, or deciding to play a pirate game because you know that your players are beer and pretzels casual gamers that like to blow steam, not super heavy thespian types wanting a deep story line. The entire setting is crafted by the DM based on knowledge he has from outside of the setting. He's only requirement is that he make the setting rich, believable, and fun. And there is nothing inherently unfun or unbelievable about the protagonist, uber-talented scion of destiny that he is, has an older brother he is estranged from that is just as talented as he is, but who has chosen a different path in life.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So what? An average RPG session involves dozens of highly improbable things before breakfast. As I established earlier, we don't pick a random character from the population of the world for the player to play. We pick someone to whom highly improbable and unusual things are not only likely to occur, they are absolutely guaranteed to occur. If we eschewed improbability, we'd be back to picking a character solely by dice rolls out of a model, and we'd likely end up with a subsistence farmer living a hard scrabble mean existence and never doing anything more glorious than managing to survive and maybe care for a family. And while that's a valuable thing and we might could tell a great story about it, that's not the sort of improbable character living an improbable life that we choose to focus on.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure. But there are also millions of people that the player could play other than the younger idealistic brother of the Big Bad, and the vast majority of people we could have chosen for the player to play are 'insignificant'. Fortunately, we aren't required to choose a random insignificant being to be central to the casting of our story.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't really see how this follows. Regardless of whether we are playing the 'Prince of England', we aren't playing a nobody unless the player specifically tells me that what he wants for the character is to be a nobody that pulls himself up by his bootstraps. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I suspect that is a formula for extreme writer's block.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Heck, it's not even the case for the characters in a novel. Plenty of authors will tell you they had no idea what the character would do until they happened. Sometimes, they are just as surprised as the reader by the turn of events.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure. But that has nothing to do with metagaming. And again I insist, that if you write a novel which is obviously controlled by plot contrivance rather than internal causality, it's going to be a bad novel. The trick is to make your plot contrivances, whether in a novel or an RPG, seem not to be contrived. However, they are always contrived to one degree or another. If the appearance of your evil brother seems too contrived, that's a problem with the GMs artistry. It's not however metagaming.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7556541, member: 4937"] I admit that at first glance, most people think I have a somewhat heterodox view of metagaming. I know it is popular to blame metagaming for everything, just as once upon a time it was popular to attribute to 'realism' the solution to everything. But I believe both are based on fundamental misunderstandings. I didn't object originally because your first statement was not as absolute as your later statements. I don't object to the idea that metagaming can be a crime. I object to the idea that it is universally objectively bad and further any good role-player should hate metagaming. Before we get into why, let me note our agreement: Good. This definition accords well with the one I offered, so we are on the same page. Now, I'm going to hold you to that statement. First proposition: 1) All players and all DMs always and with every action metagame all the time with every action that they take within an RPG. There is no action that you can take in an RPG that is not metagaming. This follows directly from the definition that you just gave. Every player at all times knows things that his character does not know, including the fact that it is a game. It is impossible to act in a way that you disregard the information you as a player know that the character does not know. Even if you consciously note to yourself the things you know that you know that your character doesn't know, and try to disregard those things completely, you are still then acting on the knowledge of the things you know that your player doesn't know. Because you know these things, you can never unknow them. Your decision making process is forever tainted by this knowledge, and can never be pure and free from metagame knowledge. Although you can try very hard to be introspective and ask yourself, "What would my character do in this situation?", even then you are asking yourself that and engaging in introspection, and you are not yourself in the game world and cannot possibly answer the question except as influenced by all the other stuff that you know. So when we talk about metagaming being a crime, we are perforce, speaking of a very narrow range of metagaming activity, since the whole of playing an RPG where you make choice for your character is metagaming activity. It can't possibly be the case that metagaming is bad, unless we also agree that playing an RPG is bad. Which brings us to our second postulate: 2) Metagaming is actually good and necessary to playing an RPG. Let's suppose that we were obsessed with the idea of playing a pure simulation of an imagined world, free from any metagaming. We could begin to create procedures of play that would ensure that we didn't act based on metagame knowledge. For example, faced with a situation where we know the character is facing a troll, but we also realize that deliberately not using fire in this situation is also metagaming, since absence our knowledge that this is a troll and is vulnerable to fire, either we might have stumbled on the idea of using fire anyway or the character might have heard in his long life within the setting stories of trolls and their vulnerability to fire (and many other traits). So we in this situation decide to flip a coin, in order that we can guarantee our decision is free from bias and we cannot be accused of the 'evils' of metagaming. However, by the first proposition all decision points are identical to the decision point of whether to hit the troll with the torch. Everything is tainted by our out of character knowledge, and so every decision must be resolved by a coin flip of some sort. The result of our obsession is that the game will cease to be an RPG. Indeed, it will cease to be a game at all. What we will instead have created is a model. We can set it running, but once it is running, to maintain the purity of the simulation we - being outside the model and so influenced by our knowledge that the characters in the model couldn't have - can't in fact touch it. We won't make decisions at all. 3) When the DM creates a setting or scenario, he acts on knowledge no character within the scenario or setting could have - including the fact that it is a game. However, this is not (in and of itself) metagaming. Why? Because you said yourself that metagaming involves acting on behalf of a character and a DM creating a castle or a city or a jungle isn't acting on behalf of a character. No NPCs wishes are consulted in that creative process. While he may at times after things have begun ask, "What might this NPC do in this situation based on what the NPC knows?", there is no way that he can ask questions like, "What might this setting be like based only on the information within the setting?" The setting can't be defined in terms of itself - it's always defined in external terms, by making reference to the one setting we have, reality. Even when it differs to reality, that's still referencing reality as a baseline. Now, for the record, I consider your definition slightly too narrow. There are things you can do in a setting that are metagaming, and I mentioned a few (such as adjusting the nature of your setting to counter the abilities of the players) but merely establishing a setting is not metagaming. And, even if it was, it wouldn't necessarily be wrong. So let's get to this now. I put it to you that you can't unknow that the character knows that trolls are weak to fire, and you can't but metagame about that. You can't unknow that and ever again actually simulate the not knowing that. At best you can do is try to pretend for a while you don't know that, and make some determination of how quickly your character might figure that out, but that entire decision making process will always be based on your out of game knowledge. Secondly, the assumption that a puzzle is solvable based on the fact your DM presented it to you is metagaming, but it's a really lousy assumption. This is an example not only of metagaming, but metagaming based on knowledge that is likely wrong. The fact that a player is acting on out of game knowledge that is actually wrong is really the only reason I tell my players not to metagame. It's not that I think that there is any wrongness in a player metagaming, it's just that I think players are usually pretty terrible at doing it and further that if you get in the habit of relying on out of game knowledge, you'll tend to ignore end game clues. I don't tell my players not to metagame because I think it's a crime to do so - it's all metagaming. I tell them that because I think that players use it as a weak crutch. In point of fact, I believe all metagaming is the DMs fault and reflects badly on the DM. A DM should never be upset with his players for metagaming, and never tell his players, "Don't do that. That's metagaming." It took me maybe 15 years to realize that, but telling your players not to metagame is proof of your own bad DMing and your own reliance on crutches. If the players are metagaming and you are upset about it, one or more of the following is true: a) You became invested in some sort of 'gotcha' encounter, which is adversarial DMing. b) You are trying to play the player's character, which is a violation of the baseline social contract of an RPG. c) You did a bad job in your role of secret keeper, and let slip a secret at the wrong time, and you are doing an equally bad job of improvising. This suggests you need to work on your skills, you were bragging to the players, you were impatient, you didn't study enough before the session, or you just otherwise made a noob mistake. Now that the secret is out of the bag, it's ridiculous to act like the players can ignore the secret. Why not? Sure, although as I noted above, not by your definition. But if that is metagaming, so is putting 5 Bugbears in the room instead of 50 or 500, or not chasing the players down with an ancient red dragon, or deciding that the country you will start on is loosely based on medieval Scotland, or deciding to play a pirate game because you know that your players are beer and pretzels casual gamers that like to blow steam, not super heavy thespian types wanting a deep story line. The entire setting is crafted by the DM based on knowledge he has from outside of the setting. He's only requirement is that he make the setting rich, believable, and fun. And there is nothing inherently unfun or unbelievable about the protagonist, uber-talented scion of destiny that he is, has an older brother he is estranged from that is just as talented as he is, but who has chosen a different path in life. So what? An average RPG session involves dozens of highly improbable things before breakfast. As I established earlier, we don't pick a random character from the population of the world for the player to play. We pick someone to whom highly improbable and unusual things are not only likely to occur, they are absolutely guaranteed to occur. If we eschewed improbability, we'd be back to picking a character solely by dice rolls out of a model, and we'd likely end up with a subsistence farmer living a hard scrabble mean existence and never doing anything more glorious than managing to survive and maybe care for a family. And while that's a valuable thing and we might could tell a great story about it, that's not the sort of improbable character living an improbable life that we choose to focus on. Sure. But there are also millions of people that the player could play other than the younger idealistic brother of the Big Bad, and the vast majority of people we could have chosen for the player to play are 'insignificant'. Fortunately, we aren't required to choose a random insignificant being to be central to the casting of our story. I don't really see how this follows. Regardless of whether we are playing the 'Prince of England', we aren't playing a nobody unless the player specifically tells me that what he wants for the character is to be a nobody that pulls himself up by his bootstraps. I suspect that is a formula for extreme writer's block. Heck, it's not even the case for the characters in a novel. Plenty of authors will tell you they had no idea what the character would do until they happened. Sometimes, they are just as surprised as the reader by the turn of events. Sure. But that has nothing to do with metagaming. And again I insist, that if you write a novel which is obviously controlled by plot contrivance rather than internal causality, it's going to be a bad novel. The trick is to make your plot contrivances, whether in a novel or an RPG, seem not to be contrived. However, they are always contrived to one degree or another. If the appearance of your evil brother seems too contrived, that's a problem with the GMs artistry. It's not however metagaming. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
What are the biggest RPG crimes?
Top